Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Muscovy Ducks

Muscovy Ducks

Original Edit 1 by Fir0002 - sharpening

Reason

Encyclopedic image of the wild birds, which shows close up portraits of both male and female as well as an interesting behavior.

Proposed caption

Male and female Muscovy Ducks, Cairina moschata. The male is engaged in Social grooming

Articles this image appears in

Muscovy Duck

Creator

Mbz1

• Support as nominator Mbz1 (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Question Do you have a high res version of this - I wouldn't mind having a shot at sharpening it a bit better --Fir0002 07:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your question, Fir0002. I do have original (taken in JPG format) May I e-mail it to you please?--Mbz1 (talk) 13:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes no problem, I prefer to keep my email confidential so go to my userpage and use the "email this user" function in the toolbox and I'll reply with my email. --Fir0002 01:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. For encyclopaedic value we prefer pictures of the whole bird. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment Samsara. If I may, I'd like to address your concern please. Generally speaking you are right and an image of the whole bird would have been better, yet IMO the nominated image has at least two reasons to be cinsidered for FP status: first - it shows the male and female together (it was very interesting for me to observe different colors of their eyes.)The second reason IMO is that it shows interesting behavior. IMO the image adds value to the article. If I may, I'd like also to mention that Wikipedia FP has few images of not the whole birds. --Mbz1 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • I counted three. One is included in pair bond, another in beak, and the bald eagle is an FP of almost three years. It's only significant use is as an afterthought in bird of prey. It may have to be reviewed at some point. Samsara (talk • contribs) 05:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: Too difficult to discern the subject, much of the subject is cut off (reducing encylopedic benefit), and it appears to me to have been taken using an on camera flash, if not the lighting is terrible. IvoShandor (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Fir0002, thank you for working on the image. You've done a great job with it.
    Thank you for your comment, Samsara and for your vote, IvoShandor. I do agree that the whole bird would have had much more value and that the lighting is very bad (there was no flash, just a bad lighting). May I please ask for your opinion? Do you believe that the image should be removed from the article Muscovy Duck for the lack of encyclopedic value and for a terrible lighting and be placed in the gallery at the end of the article instead? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not promoted MER-C 02:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)